SERP

Ruth Breslin of the SERP Institute and three of her colleagues have written a statement on the 2025 review of the 2017 change in law in Ireland. It is called The SERP Institute: Statement on the Review on the Operation of Section 7A of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act.

There is one paragraph in particular that I found intriguing. I quote it below.

Based on the evidence The SERP Institute has gathered, dating back to 2015, we have established that approximately 10-15% of women in prostitution in Ireland fit the ‘classic’ definition of trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation recognised in Irish law, while approximately 5-10% describe having entered prostitution by choice, in circumstances where they had other choices available to them. A proportion of these describe themselves as ‘sex workers’ and view prostitution as a form of work. However, the  majority of approximately 80% fall into a much larger ‘vulnerable’ category – these are primarily migrant women, new to Ireland and often with limited English, who have been drawn into prostitution by the urgent need to support family/loved ones in their country of origin.

Ruth Breslin used to work for Ruhama so I would have expected her statement to reflect the beliefs of Ruhama. I didn't expect that she would admit that up to 10% of sex workers entered prostitution by choice. Not only that but they had other choices available to them. Not only that but for them it is work like any other work that they have tried. I have not heard any of the pro-Nordic model lobby accept anything like that.

I believe it is many more than 10% of sex workers in countries like Ireland and Britain who entered prostitution by choice. It could be that the women SERP encounter are not representative of sex workers. Or more likely they have not fully understood the 80% who they have decided to call 'vulnerable'. Perhaps SERP call this group vulnerable because they don't know what is happening with them.

I can believe that 80% of sex workers in Ireland (or Britain) are migrant women. They are saying that 90-95% of sex workers in Ireland are migrants. 10-15% meet some criterion for having been trafficked. So who are these 80%, the non-trafficked ones? To say that they entered prostitution to support family or loved ones back home is to overgeneralize. That can't be true of 80% of sex workers in Ireland.

Even if it was true, they are still doing it through choice. Most Chinese women can support their family by working in a garment factory or something similar. Perhaps if one of their family had a severe medical problem that would be the 'urgent need' mentioned in the paragraph. There can't be many like that though.

Most of this 80% could have chosen to work in a garment factory in their home country. They had other choices available to them. Some of them will want to save money so that they can start their own business back home. Or pay college fees. Some of them might want to get a deposit for a home. Some of them might want to pay off their debts. Some of them might want to buy a car.

There was an interesting documentary done by Stacey Dooley where she visited a brothel in Nevada. One of the women said that she could have continued being a waitress but she wanted a better future. She needed some capital and then she could go into real estate. Investing in the future is a common motivation for sex workers around the world.

So what about the 10-15% of Irish sex workers who fit the ‘classic’ definition of trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation recognised in Irish law. I find this believable too. But then it depends which criteria you use. Professor Ko-lin Chin interviewed 149 migrant sex workers from China. He wrote that 15% of the women were 'not free to move around or quit sex work because her travel documents are kept by her employer or debtor'. He also wrote that only 1% were 'forced, deceived or coerced'.

So Professor Ko-lin Chin says it is 15%. Ruth Breslin says it is 10-15%. Professor Ko-lin Chin didn't interview any Chinese migrant sex workers in Ireland but it seems likely that this could be true of migrant sex workers around the world. So I would say that 85-90% of Irish sex workers enter prostitution out of choice.

The Irish government should put in place policies that help the 10-15% of sex workers who are not happy with their situation. At the same time they should help the other migrant workers both male and female who are unhappy. Many migrant workers have their passports taken away from them or suffer other abuses.

This should be their priority and the other 85-90% should be left in peace. They do not want to be rescued. The blanket ban on prostitution does not help and is counterproductive. Deportations harm these women and seems especially cruel for that number who do have an urgent need to support a family member especially if it is medical and means saving his or her life.

Many Irish people will think that migration is too high. That may be the real reason for them to want to ban prostitution. It suits them to pretend that they are rescuing women. I don't think that sex workers are the main problem in this respect because as far as I know most of them want to return to their countries of origin. With thousands of pounds in the bank so that they can improve their lives. Not as a deportee in a country like China where they may well encounter problems for the rest of their lives with the authorities who will treat them with suspicion and discrimination.

These women take a big gamble with their lives. It is for high stakes. They could end up much better off, setting themselves up for life, never having to return to the garment factory they hated. Or they could end up in trouble first with the British authorities then the Chinese authorities when they are forced to return. They are disadvantaged compared to us in Britain or Ireland, although they have never been starving or unable to provide some kind of life for their families. That is something we should respect and think about when formulating policies.

I have met women like this and like them. It angers me that social conservatives, Christians and Radical Feminists assume that I care less for migrant women than they do. They cheer on the police when they 'rescue' women without ever thinking of the consequences for these women.

The rest of this statement offers no new information, just the usual pro-Nordic model propaganda. They use terms like "highly gendered" and "imbalance of power" which seem to mean something to Radical Feminists and their Christian allies. They do not distinguish between legalization and decriminalization and insist that prostitution has increased ('expanded far beyond control') in New Zealand. It's the Irish system that doesn't work, not the New Zealand system.

What our many research participants disclose could not be clearer – the sex of  prostitution is unwanted sex – women in prostitution have no desire to have sex with multiple unknown men every day – but they submit themselves to this because they are coerced to do so, or because they so desperately need the money.

This is like saying that cab drivers don't want to drive people. Cab drivers may not enjoy driving people but they want to have customers because that is their preferred method of making money. Most sex workers are not coerced, even Ruth Breslin has accepted that. Even the 10-15% of Irish sex workers who fit the definition of trafficked won't usually have been coerced.

Neither is it true that they desperately need the money. When someone starts work in a garment factory it is because they need money for food and to pay rent. If some of these women choose to try sex work it is because they are fed up with just surviving and want something better. Nobody needs to save money for college fees or to buy property or to start a business. Even less do they need to earn money to buy a car.

They do this because they want to. Nothing to do with desperation (unless they really, really hate working in their garment factory). What they don't want is to be forced to work in a garment factory for the rest of their lives. What they don't want is to be deported back to China where they may or may not be able to return to their lives as factory workers.

What they also don't want is to work for someone like Ruth Breslin ironing clothes for minimum wage. Domestic work is "highly gendered" and there is an "imbalance of power" between employer and menial. That doesn't seem to bother people like Ruth Breslin though. A Chinese woman could earn an amount through ironing and other drudgery each day or the same amount by spending half an hour with me. What would she prefer? I'll let her decide that. That is her right and freedom, the right and freedom that Ruth Breslin and people like her want to take away.